Have tour conditions really changed that much in the last five years? Do you really believe that if Nadal, Murray and Djokovic were born five years later, their development would have been significantly delayed?

Which is more likely - that conditions are so different that normal career trajectories are being pushed back by 2-3 years, or that via a statistical fluke there simply have been no elite-level talents to emerge in the past 4-5 years?

Click to expand...

Before 2007/2008, the 3rd spot on the rankings was generally shared between Davydenko, Roddick and Nalbandian. The second spot was occupied after Nadal pushed himself to the top of the rankings. He was so consistently good he, himself, as #2, had enough points to lead the rest of the tour as a dominant #1 in a different era.

Then in 2007, Djokovic came along and claimed the 3rd spot, once again having enough points to be a dominant #1 in a different era. Then Murray comes along with also enough points to be a dominant #1 in another era.

What's happened is that there are four DOMINANT #1 players. They would all be #1 in another era and they're all talented enough to be all time greats.

not sure if anyone else in the thread has mentioned it, but i think the physicality of players present near the top of the game says a lot.

it's become harder to bridge the gap between talented young guys and talented top players because the added dimension of physicality, not just muscle mass, but degree of conditioning. it takes time to build top level conditioning and money to get a trainer to do so. it seems within a couple of generations, its become a lot harder for a pure shotmaker with a typical 18 year old tennis player's physique to shoot up the rankings.

if the climate of tennis (technology, court speed, style of play) stay the way they are or keep moving in the same direction, the breakout age of 17/18 that we're used to seeing regularly before, will become more like 23-25.

not sure if anyone else in the thread has mentioned it, but i think the physicality of players present near the top of the game says a lot.

it's become harder to bridge the gap between talented young guys and talented top players because the added dimension of physicality, not just muscle mass, but degree of conditioning. it takes time to build top level conditioning and money to get a trainer to do so. it seems within a couple of generations, its become a lot harder for a pure shotmaker with a typical 18 year old tennis player's physique to shoot up the rankings. if the climate of tennis (technology, court speed, style of play) stay the way they are or keep moving in the same direction, the breakout age of 17/18 that we're used to seeing regularly before, will become more like 23-25.

good point, but i think work ethic and not taking it seriously enough held him back just as much his mental cramp. i actually think he wouldn't have had as many mental cramps late in matches if he had the conditioning to support his game.
if tomic were to have stayed on track, do you think it could have taken him to the top of the game without improving his fitness? he had a couple great runs early on in the year, beat some quality players, but when he had to play anyone ranked within the top 15, he would crumble. granted his results early on were nothing to sniff at compared to other talented young bucks, but unless he improved his conditioning, he wasn't going to maximize his shotmaking.

like i said, it's possible for a teen to shoot up the rankings, but it's a lot harder to do so nowadays as opposed to previous generations.

Goran did have an easy draw that year. You're saying that getting through a bunch of hard court and clay specialists is "incredibly hard"?

Click to expand...

An easy draw? Are you kidding? Goran Ivanisevic had been in an awful slump for at least 18 months before 2001 Wimbledon, was struggling to survive on the main tour, and by the time of 2001 Wimbledon, he was ranked at 125 in the world. Earlier that year, he had travelled for 20+ hours to Melbourne for the Australian Open qualifiers, and lost the first qualifier to Petr Luxa, and then travelled back another 20+ hours the same day he had lost to Luxa. At 2001 Queen's Club, Goran was swept aside by Cristiano Caratti, a one-time decent player and 1991 Australian Open quarter finalist, who was many years past his prime, and by 2001 was a journeyman at best.

Now let's look at Goran's opponents at 2001 Wimbledon. Jonsson in the first round was a journeyman, fair enough, but the others are very tough for someone ranked as low as 125 in the world. Moya is a former major winner (1998 French Open champion), Roddick was a big up-and-coming 18 year old who had beaten Sampras at 2001 Miami and was expected to sweep aside the "washed up" Goran with his serve, Rusedski was playing well in previous matches, dominant on serve, and was dangerous on grass, Safin was the reigning US Open champion, and Henman was never in better grass-court form than he was at this point and was a serious title challenger with a ferocious crowd backing him every step of the way. And Rafter was in his second Wimbledon final in a row and a former 2-time US Open champion.

An easy draw? Are you kidding? Goran Ivanisevic had been in an awful slump for at least 18 months before 2001 Wimbledon, was struggling to survive on the main tour, and by the time of 2001 Wimbledon, he was ranked at 125 in the world. Earlier that year, he had travelled for 20+ hours to Melbourne for the Australian Open qualifiers, and lost the first qualifier to Petr Luxa, and then travelled back another 20+ hours the same day he had lost to Luxa. At 2001 Queen's Club, Goran was swept aside by Cristiano Caratti, a one-time decent player and 1991 Australian Open quarter finalist, who was many years past his prime, and by 2001 was a journeyman at best.

Now let's look at Goran's opponents at 2001 Wimbledon. Jonsson in the first round was a journeyman, fair enough, but the others are very tough for someone ranked as low as 125 in the world. Moya is a former major winner (1998 French Open champion), Roddick was a big up-and-coming 18 year old who had beaten Sampras at 2001 Miami and was expected to sweep aside the "washed up" Goran with his serve, Rusedski was playing well in previous matches, dominant on serve, and was dangerous on grass, Safin was the reigning US Open champion, and Henman was never in better grass-court form than he was at this point and was a serious title challenger with a ferocious crowd backing him every step of the way. And Rafter was in his second Wimbledon final in a row and a former 2-time US Open champion.

An easy draw? Are you kidding? Goran Ivanisevic had been in an awful slump for at least 18 months before 2001 Wimbledon, was struggling to survive on the main tour, and by the time of 2001 Wimbledon, he was ranked at 125 in the world. Earlier that year, he had travelled for 20+ hours to Melbourne for the Australian Open qualifiers, and lost the first qualifier to Petr Luxa, and then travelled back another 20+ hours the same day he had lost to Luxa. At 2001 Queen's Club, Goran was swept aside by Cristiano Caratti, a one-time decent player and 1991 Australian Open quarter finalist, who was many years past his prime, and by 2001 was a journeyman at best.

Now let's look at Goran's opponents at 2001 Wimbledon. Jonsson in the first round was a journeyman, fair enough, but the others are very tough for someone ranked as low as 125 in the world. Moya is a former major winner (1998 French Open champion), Roddick was a big up-and-coming 18 year old who had beaten Sampras at 2001 Miami and was expected to sweep aside the "washed up" Goran with his serve, Rusedski was playing well in previous matches, dominant on serve, and was dangerous on grass, Safin was the reigning US Open champion, and Henman was never in better grass-court form than he was at this point and was a serious title challenger with a ferocious crowd backing him every step of the way. And Rafter was in his second Wimbledon final in a row and a former 2-time US Open champion.

Yeah, easy.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. that might not be the hardest draw ever but still a very tough one with some big names. yes safin and moya were not exactly grass courters but still not easy to beat. I would say for that time (when there was no big 4 and sampras and agassi were getting old) it was an average draw. most draws from 99-03 were quite mediocre.

I totally agree. that might not be the hardest draw ever but still a very tough one with some big names. yes safin and moya were not exactly grass courters but still not easy to beat. I would say for that time (when there was no big 4 and sampras and agassi were getting old) it was an average draw. most draws from 99-03 were quite mediocre.

Click to expand...

With Sampras out of the draw(Thanks to Federer), any draw becomes much easier.

Dimitrov is the real deal, and a few others, but otherwise I agree. ATP is done and tennis could be abolished a few years from now because there is no one out there with the talent and skill to win slams.

And he beat Pete Sampras at the age of 19. That feat alone is greater than winning a grand slam IMO.

Click to expand...

When I mean he beat Sampras, I mean he beat Sampras at the Centre Court of Wimbledon, while Sampras was a 7-time defending champ! If it wasn't for Federer, Pete would have had his 8th Wimbledon title easily. Henman, Goran, and Rafter were all Pete's lap dog in the 90s.

When I mean he beat Sampras, I mean he beat Sampras at the Centre Court of Wimbledon, while Sampras was a 7-time defending champ! If it wasn't for Federer, Pete would have had his 8th Wimbledon title easily. Henman, Goran, and Rafter were all Pete's lap dog in the 90s.

Click to expand...

I doubt it. Sampras wasn't going to win 2001 Wimbledon unless his form improved considerably. Even Barry Cowan gave him a big scare. And Goran has beaten Sampras at Wimbledon before, serving 36 aces and not even facing a break point during a 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2 win in their 1992 Wimbledon semi final.

As for Rafter, he frustrated the hell out of Sampras in the summer of 1998, probably more than anyone else ever managed on the tennis court, and Rafter had his chances to go 2 sets up in their 2000 Wimbledon final.

I doubt it. Sampras wasn't going to win 2001 Wimbledon unless his form improved considerably. Barry Cowan gave him a big scare. And Goran has beaten Sampras at Wimbledon before, serving 36 aces and not even facing a break point during a 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 6-2 win in their 1992 Wimbledon semi final.

Click to expand...

Sure, 1992 pre-prime Sampras would have lost to 2001 Goran, but I'd still give Sampras 2001 a clear edge over Goran 2001. Goran was lucky he didn't have to face Sampras, or he would have ended his career with 0 Wimbledon like a certain american player who kept losing to Federer at Wimbledon.

Sure, 1992 pre-prime Sampras would have lost to 2001 Goran, but I'd still give Sampras 2001 a clear edge over Goran 2001. Goran was lucky he didn't have to face Sampras, or he would have ended his career with 0 Wimbledon like a certain american player who kept losing to Federer at Wimbledon.

Click to expand...

1992 Wimbledon saw Sampras destroy the defending champion, Stich, in an hour and a half in their quarter final match. And Stich is a player who Sampras has a losing head-to-head against. Sampras may have been pre-prime, but only slightly. That was a strong Sampras. Ivanisevic was more experienced in Wimbledon semi finals, having been there in 1990 against Becker.

The paradox is that someone like a Djokovic i.e. super-solid and super-athletic takes years to develop and you don't necessarily see it happening because his game is not flashy and have any massive standout features, while someone with flash and verve ala Dolgopolov or even Raonic will not matter much, either because their games are riddled with holes while possessing undeniable weapons, or are way too inconsistent day-in and day-out.

You need to be a physical beast like a Nadal to make a statement early in your career these days. And even Nadal had to dominate clay to an insane degree to fast-track his career, adding several unique things to the game.

The paradox is that someone like a Djokovic i.e. super-solid and super-athletic takes years to develop and you don't necessarily see it happening because his game is not flashy and have any massive standout features, while someone with flash and verve ala Dolgopolov or even Raonic will not matter much, either because their games are riddled with holes while possessing undeniable weapons, or are way too inconsistent day-in and day-out.

You need to be a physical beast like a Nadal to make a statement early in your career these days. And even Nadal had to dominate clay to an insane degree to fast-track his career, adding several unique things to the game.

Click to expand...

Novak didn't take years. He won his first slame at 20 years old. And about that time became thoroughly esconssed as the third best player in the world.

I just clicked on next generation thread and you guys are talking about sampras and ivanisevic?

Click to expand...

Exactly. There's no one to talk about. We don't know who the future slam champions (4-5 years down the line) because we've never heard of them. A few people have written Dolgopolov or Dimitrov, but come on, really??

By the time the "new generation" takes over, Tennis will have lost millions of viewers due to a lack of talent and promise from the young guys. Its going to make 2001-2003 look like the golden age of tennis

By the time the "new generation" takes over, Tennis will have lost millions of viewers due to a lack of talent and promise from the young guys. Its going to make 2001-2003 look like the golden age of tennis

Click to expand...

I think this tennis rennaissance will be followed by a dark age. I don't see how anyone is going to step up to fill the spot.

It might be like 1998-2003 with a lot of different major winners. The tennis was good even if there weren't many consistently great players. In 2001-2002, for example, Hewitt was as consistent as it got and he finished both years as world number 1, yet he didn't dominate either year. In fact, he didn't clinch the world number 1 in both years until during the last tournament of the year, i.e. the Masters Cup.

I think this tennis rennaissance will be followed by a dark age. I don't see how anyone is going to step up to fill the spot.

Click to expand...

That's my feeling too. The quality at the top may have discouraged some of the competitiveness at the bottom from coming up.

There are a whole lot of names but a lot of uncertainty. Even Djokovic and Murray looked more promising in 2005, 2006 than some of the guys are looking right now. I give some chance to Raonic, Isner but beyond that it looks like Djokorray(dal) have a lot of titles ahead of them.

Novak didn't take years. He won his first slame at 20 years old. And about that time became thoroughly esconssed as the third best player in the world.

Click to expand...

i agree with the notion that djokovic was the biggest upstart to date since nadal—finding great results early in his career while displaying great tennis.

but despite making it into the top 3 by 2008 and winning the AO, he also became thoroughly ensconced at being head and shoulders worse than the two best players in the world until he was 23. there was a much more defined gap between 2&3 back then as there is now. after his AO win, he sort of eased off until he was able to get to the next level physically, which i think is what the other poster meant regarding novak taking years to develop.

that said, djokovic with his australian open win at 20 & 3/4 has, to this date, had a considerably better start than Raonic, Dimitrov and Dolgopolov, as well as Harrison and Tomic unless either wins the AO in the following months.

It might be like 1998-2003 with a lot of different major winners. The tennis was good even if there weren't many consistently great players. In 2001-2002, for example, Hewitt was as consistent as it got and he finished both years as world number 1, yet he didn't dominate either year. In fact, he didn't clinch the world number 1 in both years until during the last tournament of the year, i.e. the Masters Cup.

Click to expand...

And not knowing who is going to finish the year at #1 made it extremely interesting.

until this year (in the open era), the lowest number of "new winners on tour" (per year) was 4 (in 2010)... and this year, we only had one:
klizan winning the title in leningrad.
(last year, we had 10 !)

in a larger context:(based on hops' website, removing 1968 and 1969 because of the 'transition' with the beginning of the open era)

until this year (in the open era), the lowest number of "new winners on tour" (per year) was 4 (in 2010)... and this year, we only had one:
klizan winning the title in leningrad.
(last year, we had 10 !)

in a larger context:(based on hops' website, removing 1968 and 1969 because of the 'transition' with the beginning of the open era)